The Tragic Death of Trayvon Martin - Page 673 - Politics and Economics

ikestoys · 05-29-2012, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poker Reference

In fact the position of my team is unchanged: You can't pick a fight then kill the guy when you start losing. (For a while it looked worse for Zimmerman because of the police station video, but is now back to what it was before.)

It could be that there are circumstances in which you can kill the guy. I don't know if this case is one of those circumstances because it's not a random bar fight where Martin was looking at Zimmerman's girl -- Martin did nothing to invite Zimmerman's suspicion, and certainly did not deserve to be mentally convicted of all those home invasions.

You, Boss, continually fall back on the illegality or legality of specific acts, and it makes your position look shaky. It seems like barrel-scraping to seriously ask whether following or respiration or blinking are illegal, and honestly expect that if they aren't, then people will concede that Zimmerman is free and clear of accountability for what he did because he didn't intend for it to go that way, even that way was deliberately killing Martin. Despite that being the condition for Murder 2, you seem to be of the opinion that... what? Even though you agree Zimmerman is at fault for the situation, and don't dispute that he killed Martin on purpose and the conditions are therefore satisfied, he should escape a criminal conviction because...?

Quote:

The state is unlikely to prevail in arguing Zimmerman was the aggressor because to be the aggressor, Zimmerman had to contemporaneously provoke the force Martin used against him. Zimmerman's profiling of Martin and call to the non-emergency number were not contemporaneous with Martin's attack. Even if the state could convince a judge or jury that Zimmerman was following Martin, rather than walking back to his car, rendering his pursuit a contemporaneous act, it is not an act that provokes Martin's use of force against him. Demanding someone account for their presence does not provoke the use of force. Even if it could be construed to be provocation for using force, all it means is Zimmerman had to attempt reasonable means to extricate himself before using deadly force in response. W-6's steadfast insistence that Zimmerman was struggling to get up and out from under Trayvon, right before the shot went off, fulfills that requirement. Zimmerman will say the same. And no witnesses saw anything different.

.

Poker Reference · 05-29-2012, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Your Boss

Does being followed give you carte blanche to respond in any way you deem appropriate, up to and including physically assaulting your follower?

This is not the question it all circles around to.

So, Zimmerman thought Martin was bad news, likely a criminal, and was on drugs or something. He must therefore have thought that contact with him might go badly. He followed him anyway, knowing that Martin was aware all this was happening and knew exactly why he was being tailed. Whether any of that entitles Martin to defend himself (I think it does; following is a threatening act according to everyone on Earth), this was all totally foreseen by Zimmerman. He cannot have been surprised that when they did meet, Martin was hostile to the bigot instead of cooperative.

Your Boss · 05-29-2012, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poker Reference

In fact the position of my team is unchanged: You can't pick a fight then kill the guy when you start losing. (For a while it looked worse for Zimmerman because of the police station video, but is now back to what it was before.)

Does following = picking a fight iyo?

And again:

Does being followed give you carte blanche to respond in any way you deem appropriate, up to and including physically assaulting your foll

Quote:

You, Boss, continually fall back on the illegality or legality of specific acts, and it makes your position look shaky. It seems like barrel-scraping to seriously ask whether following or respiration or blinking are illegal, and honestly expect that if they aren't, then people will concede that Zimmerman is free and clear of accountability for what he did because he didn't intend for it to go that way, even that way was deliberately killing Martin. Despite that being the condition for Murder 2, you seem to be of the opinion that... what? Even though you agree Zimmerman is at fault for the situation, and don't dispute that he killed Martin on purpose and the conditions are therefore satisfied, he should escape a criminal conviction because...?

The Murder 2 charge comes with a "with malice (that's not right now that I think about it, but there is something that goes here I can't think of atm)" piece, does it not? I have a hard time seeing that here.

timotheeeee · 05-29-2012, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DodgerIrish

Wut

How exactly is he supposed to show an attempt to escape while being mounted? What else can he do besides struggle to get up and scream? You expect him to attempt a sweep?

Say you're in a fight and you tackle that someone. The guy you tackle tries to get up. Do you (a) think he obviously wants to extricate himself and end the fight or (b) realize that anyone being tackled will try to get out of a vulnerable position?

I'm not saying he wasn't trying to get away. I'm saying that drawing anything definitive from the ambiguous action of "trying to get TM off of him" is stupid. He would do the same thing if he was hunting TM to kill him or if he planned on running away.

DWetzel · 05-29-2012, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Your Boss

The Murder 2 charge comes with a "with malice (that's not right now that I think about it, but there is something that goes here I can't think of atm)" piece, does it not? I have a hard time seeing that here.

No, it does not.

http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/782.04

"(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

Your Boss · 05-29-2012, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poker Reference

This is not the question it all circles around to.

So, Zimmerman thought Martin was bad news, likely a criminal, and was on drugs or something. He must therefore have thought that contact with him might go badly. He followed him anyway, knowing that Martin was aware all this was happening and knew exactly why he was being tailed. Whether any of that entitles Martin to defend himself (I think it does; following is a threatening act according to everyone on Earth), this was all totally foreseen by Zimmerman. He cannot have been surprised that when they did meet, Martin was hostile to the bigot instead of cooperative.

Cool. Then the discussion here is largely irrelevant, right? If you think that no matter what happened post GZ getting out of his truck that GZ is to blame then there is no point in discussing anything. It's moot.

Poker Reference · 05-29-2012, 01:36 PM

Ikes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Me

personally I expect an acquittal because it seems like no one gets convicted of murder anymore and Florida law does leave that door wide open. It nevertheless stands that if Zimmerman weren't a retard they'd never have encountered one another.

Your Boss · 05-29-2012, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWetzel

No, it does not.

http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/782.04

"(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

Thanks, it was the depraved mind I was thinking about. That doesn't seem to apply here at all, at least with the evidence we know.

Tjmj90 · 05-29-2012, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Your Boss

Does being followed give you carte blanche to respond in any way you deem appropriate, up to and including physically assaulting your foll

It depends, Did TM ever fear for his life? if so then it seems he would have the right to defend himself

I am really curious to know at what point TM became aware of GZ's gun

Your Boss · 05-29-2012, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tjmj90

It depends, Did TM ever fear for his life? if so then it seems he would have the right to defend himself

Not sure. Although I'm not sure that's a road Team TM wants to go down. They spent many a post arguing that GZ's wounds weren't enough for him to fear for his life, so simply being followed certainly wouldn't be enough for them.

timotheeeee · 05-29-2012, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Your Boss

Not sure. Although I'm not sure that's a road Team TM wants to go down. They spent many a post arguing that GZ's wounds weren't enough for him to fear for his life, so simply being followed certainly wouldn't be enough for them.

Don't lump me into that group. I've never argued GZ couldn't have reasonably feared for his life.

Poker Reference · 05-29-2012, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Your Boss

Cool. Then the discussion here is largely irrelevant, right? If you think that no matter what happened post GZ getting out of his truck that GZ is to blame then there is no point in discussing anything. It's moot.

You're still doing it, this zeroing in on some pointless minutia. Is it deliberate? No one really gives a **** about the truck once he wasn't in it.

Getting out of his truck to wait next to it? Not important.

Getting out his truck, walking a few steps, then thinking better of it? Not important.

Getting out of his truck and following Martin? Yes. That matters. Zimmerman said he was following Martin, and says he was walking back to his truck when he was ambushed. Are you disputing that he followed him, or are you disputing whether that's threatening, or are you disputing that everyone is expected to feel threatened by being followed? What are you disagreeing with me over?

I can see some disagreement over what to do when you feel threatened, and I can see some disagreement over how they met -- if they came from opposite directions than a fight is practically inevitable. If Zimmerman caught up to Martin from the same direction then it looks even worse for him. The only way blaming Martin works is to assume that he followed Zimmerman to ask why Zimmerman was following him, which is not only a stupid hypothesis it is contradicted by Dee Dee.

ikestoys · 05-29-2012, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poker Reference

Ikes:

That's wrong too, for the same reasons already outlined.

Poker Reference · 05-29-2012, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Your Boss

Not sure. Although I'm not sure that's a road Team TM wants to go down.

That isn't the road we're on. Could have a reasonably feared for his life? Sure, why not.

Does the eventual existence of that fear mean he should escape all punishment?

Your Boss · 05-29-2012, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poker Reference

You're still doing it, this zeroing in on some pointless minutia. Is it deliberate? No one really gives a **** about the truck once he wasn't in it.

Getting out of his truck to wait next to it? Not important.

Getting out his truck, walking a few steps, then thinking better of it? Not important.

Getting out of his truck and following Martin? Yes. That matters. Zimmerman said he was following Martin, and says he was walking back to his truck when he was ambushed. Are you disputing that he followed him, or are you disputing whether that's threatening, or are you disputing that everyone is expected to feel threatened by being followed? What are you disagreeing with me over?

I'm disputing the reasonableness of TM's (theoretical) reaction to being followed. Which is (theoretically) verbal confrontation followed by punch(es) to the face, then banging head against the ground. Like, if TM instead of punching GZ had shot him, would that be a reasonable response to being followed?

Quote:

I can see some disagreement over what to do when you feel threatened, and I can see some disagreement over how they met -- if they came from opposite directions than a fight is practically inevitable. If Zimmerman caught up to Martin from the same direction then it looks even worse for him. The only way blaming Martin works is to assume that he followed Zimmerman to ask why Zimmerman was following him, which is not only a stupid hypothesis it is contradicted by Dee Dee.

The timeline everyone seems to be on now is almost exactly this. That TM eluded GZ, then came back to confront him!